Under their stringent standards, the woman’s evidence that she had received counseling from Planned Parenthood on all medical and emotional aspects of her decision and that she was a good student was not enough.
They justified this heightened standard as necessary in part to protect her parents’ interests, and because of the “magnitude” of the issue of abortion. The Arizona courts required that she provide “clear and convincing evidence” that she was mature enough – a much higher burden than is often applied in civil cases.
#Judicial consent imdb full#
Implementation of the procedures is full of logistical nightmares that push some young people through the cracks and provide no check against bias and lies. The procedures are based on unclear legal criteria which create the double standard of requiring young people seeking bypasses to be “mature” enough before they may choose to have an abortion but not have a child. Judicial bypass procedures put judges – who are not doctors, not counselors, not experts in health or youth development – in the position of making reproductive healthcare decisions for the young people before them.
As of January 2015, thirty-eight states enforce laws that require a young person under 18 to notify or obtain consent from one or both parents before she can receive abortion care.1 The Supreme Court has allowed these laws, so long as they include narrow exceptions, generally called “judicial bypass” procedures, which require minors to receive court approval to access abortion care when they do not have their parents’ knowledge or consent. In many states people under 18 may independently consent to a range of sensitive health care services, yet those seeking safe abortion care are singled out under the law. Young people need confidential and safe access to the full range of reproductive and sexual health services – including abortion. Undue Burdens for Young People Seeking Safe Abortion Care Available in format.